Dave_
Well-known member
daveh75:hmm, what a pointless thread
Pointless hey, so why have u bothered to make a comment on it? The thread was started by me, u clicked on it and read through it and tried to make a pointless comment. Pointless my a** lol
Pointless hey, so why have u bothered to make a comment on it? The thread was started by me, u clicked on it and read through it and tried to make a pointless comment. Pointless my a** lol
Dave_
Well-known member
matthewpiano
Well-known member
Nintendo_Fan:
There is no denying WHF have the best Home Cinema and Blu-ray reviews, better than Cnet, but I just honestly can't understand what they like about the Sony LCDs. And yes, they have given an award to a Samsung, a Panasonic and Pioneer, but absolutely everything else is just Sony. Also, in How to section of the website, is has a sponsored videos section and the only video is a Sony Vaio product tour, which could even mean that they are sponsored by Sony, and they are giving Bravia LCDs awards purely because Sony is paying them to.
Sony do well because they generally make stunning TVs - the same reason that Panasonic, Pioneer, and Samsung sets all get good reviews as well. There have been plenty of Sony products which WHFS&V haven't been blown away by. Only in the November issue they were quite critical of the performance aspects of the latest GigaJuke Hard Drive based hi-fi system and I don't remember them being that excited about the BDP-S1 when it kicked off Sony's Blu-ray range. There was a TV supplement earlier in the year in which Sony barely got a mention.
WHFS&V have ALWAYS made a big deal about the fact that the headline resolution capability is only a small part of a TV's performance and actually, if you take the time to look at the current Sony range, there is only one TV below 40" which offers Full HD 1080P - the 32W4500. Every other Bravia 26", 32", and 37" is 720p/1080i. Furthermore, WHFS&V is one of the few sources of reviews that doesn't get tangeld up in the pointless LCD Vs plasma debate. Instead they choose to focus on reviewing each individual TV on its own performance.
If you personally don't like the Bravias that is fine of course, but you need to avoid making accusations about propriety and you really do need to do your homework before launching attacks.
There is no denying WHF have the best Home Cinema and Blu-ray reviews, better than Cnet, but I just honestly can't understand what they like about the Sony LCDs. And yes, they have given an award to a Samsung, a Panasonic and Pioneer, but absolutely everything else is just Sony. Also, in How to section of the website, is has a sponsored videos section and the only video is a Sony Vaio product tour, which could even mean that they are sponsored by Sony, and they are giving Bravia LCDs awards purely because Sony is paying them to.
Sony do well because they generally make stunning TVs - the same reason that Panasonic, Pioneer, and Samsung sets all get good reviews as well. There have been plenty of Sony products which WHFS&V haven't been blown away by. Only in the November issue they were quite critical of the performance aspects of the latest GigaJuke Hard Drive based hi-fi system and I don't remember them being that excited about the BDP-S1 when it kicked off Sony's Blu-ray range. There was a TV supplement earlier in the year in which Sony barely got a mention.
WHFS&V have ALWAYS made a big deal about the fact that the headline resolution capability is only a small part of a TV's performance and actually, if you take the time to look at the current Sony range, there is only one TV below 40" which offers Full HD 1080P - the 32W4500. Every other Bravia 26", 32", and 37" is 720p/1080i. Furthermore, WHFS&V is one of the few sources of reviews that doesn't get tangeld up in the pointless LCD Vs plasma debate. Instead they choose to focus on reviewing each individual TV on its own performance.
If you personally don't like the Bravias that is fine of course, but you need to avoid making accusations about propriety and you really do need to do your homework before launching attacks.
You stole my thunder a bit their mathew! i was just about to suggest that maybe sony TV's got good reviews becouse in fact they are acually quite good!
I really don't understand the OP's confusion. I just had a quick look at that CNET review, and from the quoted passages it's fairly clear what they're saying.
1. If you have an older amp that lacks the ability to decode the HD audio formats, or it doesn't have HDMI, you can use the analogue outputs on the BD55 to achive lossless audio.
2. If you have an HDMI enabled amp capable of accepting multi channel LPCM, there's little point spending more money on the BD55 over the BD35 because you can just send the audio over HDMI. If your amp can decode the HD audio formats it's even simpler, as you can just bitstream the audio to be decoded externally (without getting into the whole internal/external decoding argument).
3. The PS3 is essentially a very powerful computer and it is much better with interactive features. There is no question about that - it's fact. Comparing it to standalone players is like comparing apples to oranges, yet every single review I've seen insists on doing so. The PS3 is also heavily subsidised by software sales (hence the price), standalones are not. Newer Profile 2.0 BD players are closer in terms of functionality and speed, but still behind , although in my experience the Sony S550 is pretty close in terms of speed (interestingly that review claimed a load time of about 01:35 for Spider-Man 3 on the BD55, but it's more like 30 seconds on the S550).
Even so, you have to ask yourself if the vast majority of people even have AV equipment to do the reportedly superior analogue output on the BD55 justice. It's for this and several other reasons that the PS3 has several adantages over standalones for the average user (such as the aforementioned speed, compatibility, ease of use, price, the ability to play games and stream various forms of media). Of course it has its failings, such as its lack of analogue output for legacy amps (so you'e limited to lossy audio), its considerable fan noise and its power consumption.
CNET aren't saying one is better than the other, they're just listing the pros and cons of each system. Personally I went for a combination of price and performance with the S550. It's a much better machine than either of my previous BD players, it approaching the speed of my PS3 for interactive content and it was £75 cheaper than the cheapest price I've found for the BD55. I don't have thousands of pounds worth of speakers, so I severely doubt I'd hear any appreciable difference between the Sony and the Panasonic in my living room using analogue or any other form of connection.
1. If you have an older amp that lacks the ability to decode the HD audio formats, or it doesn't have HDMI, you can use the analogue outputs on the BD55 to achive lossless audio.
2. If you have an HDMI enabled amp capable of accepting multi channel LPCM, there's little point spending more money on the BD55 over the BD35 because you can just send the audio over HDMI. If your amp can decode the HD audio formats it's even simpler, as you can just bitstream the audio to be decoded externally (without getting into the whole internal/external decoding argument).
3. The PS3 is essentially a very powerful computer and it is much better with interactive features. There is no question about that - it's fact. Comparing it to standalone players is like comparing apples to oranges, yet every single review I've seen insists on doing so. The PS3 is also heavily subsidised by software sales (hence the price), standalones are not. Newer Profile 2.0 BD players are closer in terms of functionality and speed, but still behind , although in my experience the Sony S550 is pretty close in terms of speed (interestingly that review claimed a load time of about 01:35 for Spider-Man 3 on the BD55, but it's more like 30 seconds on the S550).
Even so, you have to ask yourself if the vast majority of people even have AV equipment to do the reportedly superior analogue output on the BD55 justice. It's for this and several other reasons that the PS3 has several adantages over standalones for the average user (such as the aforementioned speed, compatibility, ease of use, price, the ability to play games and stream various forms of media). Of course it has its failings, such as its lack of analogue output for legacy amps (so you'e limited to lossy audio), its considerable fan noise and its power consumption.
CNET aren't saying one is better than the other, they're just listing the pros and cons of each system. Personally I went for a combination of price and performance with the S550. It's a much better machine than either of my previous BD players, it approaching the speed of my PS3 for interactive content and it was £75 cheaper than the cheapest price I've found for the BD55. I don't have thousands of pounds worth of speakers, so I severely doubt I'd hear any appreciable difference between the Sony and the Panasonic in my living room using analogue or any other form of connection.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
I test OLED TVs for a living – and trust me, different sizes perform differently
- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram